[gcc(refs/users/aoliva/heads/testme)] [arm] adjust expectations for armv8_2-fp16-move-[12].c

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9112025672f77ac9e9d73a52e9030ba4ba428b06

commit 9112025672f77ac9e9d73a52e9030ba4ba428b06
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Date:   Thu Feb 23 11:01:19 2023 -0300

    [arm] adjust expectations for armv8_2-fp16-move-[12].c
    
    Commit 3a7ba8fd0cda387809e4902328af2473662b6a4a, a patch for
    tree-ssa-sink, enabled the removal of basic blocks in ways that
    affected the generated code for both of these tests, deviating from
    the expectations of the tests.
    
    The simplest case is that of -2, in which the edge unsplitting ends up
    enabling a conditional return rather than a conditional branch to a
    set-and-return block.  That looks like an improvement to me, but the
    condition in which the branch or the return takes place can be
    reasonably reversed (and, with the current code, it is), I've relaxed
    the pattern in the test so as to accept reversed and unreversed
    conditions applied to return or branch opcodes.
    
    The situation in -1 is a little more elaborate: conditional branches
    based on FP compares in test_select_[78] are initially expanded with
    CCFPE compare-and-cbranch on G{T,E}, but when ce2 turns those into a
    cmove, because now we have a different fallthrough block, the
    condition is reversed, and that lands us with a compare-and-cmove
    sequence that needs CCFP for UNL{E,T}.  The insn output reverses the
    condition and swaps the cmove input operands, so the vcmp and vsel
    insns come out the same except for the missing 'e' (for the compare
    mode) in vcmp, so, since such reversals could have happened to any of
    the tests depending on legitimate basic block layout, I've combined
    the vcmp and vcmpe counts.
    
    I see room for improving cmove sequence generation, e.g. trying direct
    and reversed conditions and selecting the cheapest one (which would
    require CCFP conditions to be modeled as more expensive than CCFPE),
    or for some other machine-specific (peephole2?) optimization to turn
    CCFP-requiring compare and cmove into CCFPE compare and swapped-inputs
    cmove, but I haven't tried that.
    
    
    for  gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    
            * gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c: Combine vcmp and vcmpe
            expected counts into a single pattern.
            * gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c: Accept conditional
            return and reversed conditions.

Diff:
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c | 3 +--
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c
index 009bb8d1575..444c4a33535 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c
@@ -196,5 +196,4 @@ test_compare_5 (__fp16 a, __fp16 b)
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {vcmp\.f16} } }  */
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {vcmpe\.f16} } }  */
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vcmp\.f32} 4 } }  */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vcmpe\.f32} 8 } }  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {vcmpe?\.f32} 12 } }  */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c
index fcb857f29ff..dff57ac8147 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-2.c
@@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ test_select (__fp16 a, __fp16 b, __fp16 c)
 {
   return (a < b) ? b : c;
 }
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bmi" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "bx?(mi|pl)" } } */